Sunday, September 8, 2013
User talk:Brenden
(Difference between revisions)The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&diff=1056953&oldid=1056927 accordingly]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&diff=1056953&oldid=1056927 accordingly]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT):The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT):The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)==Go to the talk page at the other wiki both of us frequent==There's a surprise for you there. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
User talk:Brenden/Archive
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. Blessings of the Almighty on you :) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
....you'll love this guy's stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, MattyD 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! EJamesW 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.Brenden 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT) DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! EJamesW 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. EJamesW 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
[Comments retracted by poster]Thank you, EJamesW brenden 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)What does mean?
Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?
Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)
I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...
EJamesW 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--Jpatt 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT) My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.brenden 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--Andy Schlafly 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
Thanks, Mr. Schlaflybrenden 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. Karajou 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)
Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. Wschact 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, Taj 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. Dvergne 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)
I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? Dvergne 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST) It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. brenden 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --DonnyC 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.Thanks for your input anyways, though. brenden 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)
Try now - your account has been promoted.--Andy Schlafly 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
Thanks! brenden 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - Markman 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! AlanE 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
NP brenden 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. DouglasA 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
KK got it. brenden 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)Thanks. JohanZ 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
No problembrenden 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. CameronD 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --DonnyC 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. brenden 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and Aschlafly choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. Fnarrow 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of FWilliamM a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? Fnarrow 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT) I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. brenden 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT) I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. Fnarrow 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. Karajou 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, "you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise." is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. brenden 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT) This edit [1] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. Karajou 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?
Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? AlanE 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. AlanE 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
@User:KarajouI don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. brenden 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him.I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review. Thank you, Fnarrow
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. JSandler 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. Conservative 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. brenden 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT) I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. Conservative 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT) That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. brenden 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT) Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. Conservative 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT) Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?brenden 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).
It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for personal remarks hardly compares.
Chill out, and come back refreshed. --Ed Poor Talk 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. brenden 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--Patmac 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - Markman 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. brenden 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - Markman 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. brenden 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)Good day,
I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - Markman 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. brenden 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP??" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - Markman 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording accordingly. - Markman 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. brenden 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)There's a surprise for you there. - Markman 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
LeBron James
(Difference between revisions)'''LeBron James''', nicknamed "King James", is a forward in the [[National Basketball Association]], and an [[Overrated Sports Star]]. Until July of 2010, James played for the [[Cleveland Cavaliers]] after being drafted by them in 2003, but never even came close to winning an NBA title. As a 2010 [[Free Agent]], LeBron James signed a contract with the [[Miami Heat]], which had several of the best players in the league.[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/07/08/general-bkn-lebron-apos-s-decision_7753495.html#feed=conservapedia LeBron James makes his pick: He's going to Miami], ''Forbes'', July 08, 2010. '''LeBron James''', nicknamed "King James", is a forward in the [[National Basketball Association]]. Until July of 2010, James played for the [[Cleveland Cavaliers]] after being drafted by them in 2003. He led the Cavaliers to the 2007 NBA Finals, where they were swept by the [[San Antonio Spurs]]. As a 2010 [[Free Agent]], James was wooed by several prospective teams. Heleft the Cavaliers to sign with the [[Miami Heat]], creating a "superteam" along with fellow all-stars Dwyane Wade and free agent Chris Bosh. [http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/07/08/general-bkn-lebron-apos-s-decision_7753495.html#feed=conservapedia LeBron James makes his pick: He's going to Miami], ''Forbes'', July 08, 2010. The choice by James to announce his decision on live television was controversial and prompted significant nationwide criticism.The media declared LeBron to be a basketball icon when he was graduating from high school, and the media have worked overtime trying to prove they were right. But the statistics and playoff results tell a story different from the one the media spins.The Heat reached the 2011 NBA Finals, but lost in 6 games to the underdog [[Dallas Mavericks]], with James criticized for a relatively weak performance. However, in 2012, the Heat won the NBA Championship against the [[Oklahoma City Thunder]]. Miami is currently battling the [[San Antonio Spurs]] in the 2013 NBA Finals.James has won the NBA's Most Valuable Award four times (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013), made the All-Star Team every year of his career (nine times in total), named to the All-NBA Team all nine years of his career (First Team seven times, Second Team twice), and named to the All-NBA Defensive Team five times. He was the NBA scoring champion for the 2007-2008 season, and is still the all-time leading scorer for the Cleveland Cavaliers.LeBron James is known best for never winning a scoring title, despite having strong athletic skills. He reportedly has the play-making ability and athleticism of guard in a power forward's build. In his 2012-13 season, Lebron averaged 26.8 points per game, 8 rebounds per game, and 7.2 assists per game while shooting 56.5 points from the field and 40.6 points from 3, all while leading his team to the best record in the NBA (66 wins) and the second longest winning streak in NBA history with a 27 game run. But if he's so difficult to defend, then why doesn't he score more points? In 2007, LeBron was heralded by the media for taking his team to the NBA finals, but he was then swept in four straight games by the [[San Antonio Spurs]].http://www.nba.com/finals2007/ His own personal playoff highlight also took place in these 2007 NBA playoffs, in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the [[Detroit Pistons]]. James led his team to victory by scoring 29 of the Cavaliers' last 30 points in one of his most impressive playoff performances.http://www.nba.com/games/20070531/CLEDET/gameinfo.html
LeBron James, nicknamed "King James", is a forward in the National Basketball Association. Until July of 2010, James played for the Cleveland Cavaliers after being drafted by them in 2003. He led the Cavaliers to the 2007 NBA Finals, where they were swept by the San Antonio Spurs. As a 2010 Free Agent, James was wooed by several prospective teams. Heleft the Cavaliers to sign with the Miami Heat[1] The choice by James to announce his decision on live television was controversial and prompted significant nationwide criticism.
The Heat reached the 2011 NBA Finals, but lost in 6 games to the underdog Dallas Mavericks, with James criticized for a relatively weak performance. However, in 2012, the Heat won the NBA Championship against the Oklahoma City Thunder. Miami is currently battling the San Antonio Spurs in the 2013 NBA Finals.
James has won the NBA's Most Valuable Award four times (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013), made the All-Star Team every year of his career (nine times in total), named to the All-NBA Team all nine years of his career (First Team seven times, Second Team twice), and named to the All-NBA Defensive Team five times. He was the NBA scoring champion for the 2007-2008 season, and is still the all-time leading scorer for the Cleveland Cavaliers.
2001 Ohio Mr. Basketball
2002 Ohio Mr. Basketball
2002 USA Today High School Player of the Year
2003 Ohio Mr. Basketball
2003 USA Today High School Player of the Year
2004 NBA Rookie of the Year
Bronze Medal in 2004 Summer Olympics
Gold Medal in 2008 Summer Olympics
2012 Finals MVP
? , creating a "superteam" along with fellow all-stars Dwyane Wade and free agent Chris Bosh. LeBron James makes his pick: He's going to Miami, Forbes, July 08, 2010.Talk:Mark Kirk
(Difference between revisions)==Stroke and Changes in Political views====Stroke and Changes in Political views==There are no sources that state a stroke will cause a change in political views. Since you support it, then you are responsible for finding a citation. If after 1 week of this message, you do not provide a citation from a trustworthy source that strokes cause a change in political views, then I will remove it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:48, 17 June 2013 (EDT)There are no sources that state a stroke will cause a change in political views. Since you support it, then you are responsible for finding a citation. If after 1 week of this message, you do not provide a citation from a trustworthy source that strokes cause a change in political views, then I will remove it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:48, 17 June 2013 (EDT):There are plenty of sources that show a stroke can affect the brain in all sorts of ways. Both cognitively [http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/LifeAfterStroke/RegainingIndependence/EmotionalBehavioralChallenges/Cognitive-Challenges-After-Stroke_UCM_309904_Article.jsp] including problem solving issues, which can be political, as well as personality-wise [http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/LifeAfterStroke/RegainingIndependence/EmotionalBehavioralChallenges/Personality-Changes-After-Stroke_UCM_309905_Article.jsp]. It even specifically mentions "guilt, despair, anger, shame and depression" exactly what homosexuals suffer from. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 19:51, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
There are no sources that state a stroke will cause a change in political views. Since you support it, then you are responsible for finding a citation. If after 1 week of this message, you do not provide a citation from a trustworthy source that strokes cause a change in political views, then I will remove it. brenden 13:48, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
There are plenty of sources that show a stroke can affect the brain in all sorts of ways. Both cognitively [1] including problem solving issues, which can be political, as well as personality-wise [2]. It even specifically mentions "guilt, despair, anger, shame and depression" exactly what homosexuals suffer from. AngusT 19:51, 17 June 2013 (EDT)Talk:Roman Catholic Church
(Difference between revisions):If that's how you feel, Cons. Fair enough. Go for it mate. Whatever you reckon. You can't have people trying to impose their views on others, can you? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:40, 17 June 2013 (EDT):If that's how you feel, Cons. Fair enough. Go for it mate. Whatever you reckon. You can't have people trying to impose their views on others, can you? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:40, 17 June 2013 (EDT):::The Romans tried to impose their gods on Christians and it didn't last. The atheist/agnostics/liberals attempts to impose their evolutionism religion on Christians won't last either. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:24, 17 June 2013 (EDT):::The Romans tried to impose their gods on Christians and it didn't last. The atheist/agnostics/liberals attempts to impose their evolutionism religion on Christians won't last either. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:24, 17 June 2013 (EDT)Swordsman, by the way, [http://news.riskadvisory.net/index.php/2013/03/italy-the-state-of-corruption/ corruption is endemic in Italy and has been for a long time] and Italy is [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/italy-debt-idUSL5N0EB1G220130530 buried] in debt. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100116846/yet-another-catholic-country-needs-a-bailout-from-the-protestant-north/] See also: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research Protestant work ethic and European countries] Remember, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruit." Swordsman, Italian liberal Catholicism has a lot of rotten fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:42, 18 June 2013 (EDT)===Back to the topic at hand ...======Back to the topic at hand ...===I think the article sums up the Catholic Church's view on evolution quite well with a well balanced amount of space devoted to it. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:37, 17 June 2013 (EDT)I think the article sums up the Catholic Church's view on evolution quite well with a well balanced amount of space devoted to it. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:37, 17 June 2013 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?HectorJ 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -danq 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. Pano 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. User:Danielspence 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope Formosus) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. Karajou 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT) The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --Jpatt 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT) If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. Danielspence 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -danq 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)
There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -danq 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST) Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -danq 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ex cathedra on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.
Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it. So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.
Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: it's the one marked with 1. The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design". So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.
With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --Swordsman 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)
Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the Passion of Christ makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the Great Flood occurred.--Andy Schlafly 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT) "... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in Humani Generis and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in Humani Generis addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism. "... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. Nate 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. Nate 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates. This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since Humani Generis (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: here. What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as CCC 390 affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --Swordsman 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: from the Humani Generis, "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, Jesus acknowledged and referred to the Great Flood, which evolution denies.
At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what liberals taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. Nate 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the Galileo Galilei incident. Conservative 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT) You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) Nate 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and Since33AD are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! Conservative 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Indeed. As far as I gather Sam Brownback is a creationist (although I'm not sure if young earth or old earth) and he hasn't been excommunicated or anything. - Markman 19:21, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, "stepwise considerations to make" is just another way of saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not have full confidence in evolutionism and have not spoken ex-cathedra on this matter. You are not fully confident in evolutionism. If you were, you would have challenged the creationist university biology student VivaYehshua by now. And Kenneth Miller has yet to respond to GregG's inquiry about the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 19:24, 15 June 2013 (EDT)The Humani Generis is clear, Jesus was clear, and the logic is clear. There is no logical objection to one Adam, or to the Great Flood. But once one denies one Adam or the Great Flood, then numerous logical problems arise in explaining what Jesus said and did. Why choose illogic over logic? Well, one reason is because liberals push anti-Jesus theories, and evolution is one of them, and perhaps some would rather be accepted by liberals than ridiculed by them. I choose logic any day and urge others to do likewise. Logic never fails.--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
You are entitled to believe falsehoods if you wish. The words in Humani Generis are printed right there in black and white. People should read them. It is improper to ascribe illogic, being "liberal" or whatever other insults you come up with to people who have justified principled disagreements with you like I have. This has nothing to do with politics. There is no anti-Jesus theory that could appeal to me. I do not care who ridicules me. I care about what's true and justifiable. Nate 22:33, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the Passion of Christ. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)Nate, put all your theistic evolution chips on the table. Debate the creationist university biology student VivaYehshua. Unless of course, you think he would badly beat you in a debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists. We both know that he would win such a debate hands down. Conservative 02:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
I've said this over and over, yet you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my position. Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time. I am not an expert by any means but I also don't care about evolution. I care about theology and in particular about the correct representation of Catholic theology and dogma on Conservapedia. Biblical hermeneutics as it relates to Genesis is very interesting. I would like to learn more and showing you to be an ill-informed fool is a great chance to do that. I have no interest in debating an obscure "creationist university biology student" who is a stranger to this discussion. I've repeatedly challenged you to debate me on the theological basis for your beliefs because you are the one who frequently insults me and Greg and shows a very weak grasp of Biblical hermeneutics, but you always tremble like a timorous chicken in your intellectual bunnyhole and demand people debate someone else. Are those the words you use to speak to "obscure internet posers" when you use your ESP to look into their hearts to judge them? That's just silly. There's no sensible excuse for it if you're going to participate in these discussions. Either you put your chips on the table and justify your theological position or you show yourself to be a rank coward with your vain boasting, taunts, and demands that we go talk to someone else about your nonsense. If you want to say I'm not justifying that claim, let's debate it. We are instructed to be defenders of our faith. Do you have the courage and conviction to put some skin in the game? Nate 09:48, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have. If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin? If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the Great Flood, then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Thanks for the questions. I do not deny one Adam. To do so would be anathema by Church law. No, I do not believe one can say that Jesus' miracles are merely figurative, as you say. I am talking about the interpretation of specific verses, not all Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles which I cannot deny as they are described and as I've experienced personally in having Christ in my own life. Nate 11:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Historical evidence points out to a major regional disaster from which the Flood may have been constructed; surely there was no Ark. Anyway, it's its symbolical meaning that matters. Jesus spoke to be understood from his contemporaries, making parables and allegories that were easy to understand by then-Hebrews. Think about the parable of the ten virgins: it is about a forgotten Eastern tradition which seems unusual to us today, but yet delivers a never-ending message. Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus. What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ex nihilo... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --Swordsman 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT) In response to Nate, the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion and the divinity of Christ. Perhaps you're an unusual exception to that rule, but if you accept that there was one Adam, then you reject the modern theory of evolution. In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes original sin and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--Andy Schlafly 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Anyway, I regret this discussion went downhill. Let's pick it up another time. I wish I could find my research for that article. Happy Father's Day! Nate 19:01, 16 June 2013 (EDT)NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?" People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.
Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed". It is like your myriads of "missing links" in the fossil record. Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[1] Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen HERE and HERE
So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: Jesus vs. the scientific consensus.
Lastly, creation scientists have a history of consistently winning creation vs. evolution debates dealing with the science and winning those debates hands down. See: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. Now evolutionists are very reluctant to debate creationists on the science. Your unwillingness to debate VivaYehshua is not surprising, but it is very telling. There must be some reason why are unwilling to debate the grassroots champion of the grassroots Question evolution! campaign who is studying biology at the university level. Is it because you are afraid of badly losing? I think it is. Conservative 13:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
NateK, one other thing. To my knowledge, it has always been the liberal Roman Catholics that I have locked horns with at CP and never the conservative ones. That is because the scientific consensus and evolutionism is such a "golden calf"/"sacred cow" to liberals and to liberal Christianity. And one of the ironies is that many liberal Catholics rarely read the Bible nor do the liberal Catholic hierarchy in the Western World stress Bible reading as can be seen by this statistic taken from a Roman Catholic website: "Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible."[2] Furthermore, the fruits of evolution loving liberal Christianity are quite sour as can be seen at: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League recognizes that many liberal Roman Catholics in the hierarchy of the church in the Western World has yielded bad fruit as can be seen HERE. Of course, this is not surprising. When you value pseudoscience and the scientific consensus over Scripture, the results are going to be bad. Conservative 13:43, 16 June 2013 (EDT) You're really not getting it and I think people can readily tell that by how far away you get from the real points at hand when you launch into these irrelevant screeds. We're talking about theology and Biblical hermeneutics. It's time to step up to the plate, my good man. Instead of talking about other people's exegesis, I've repeatedly challenged you to debate your own with me. Each time you raise some nonsense that I've told you I don't care about, and continue publicly debasing yourself by showing such cowardice in crowing about an anonymous college kid on a chat site. Assigning him to fight the fights you stirred up with your pride and hatred of those who disagree with you is pathetic. I want to the debate the person who knows very little of what he talks about and vaingloriously accuses me of the worst sin. Let's do this. Then perhaps you'll think twice before you continue personally insulting people just because they disagree with you. That's just awful behavior. Nate 13:50, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Conservative, I think we already made very clear that obsessively proposing to debate a creationist blogger is completely out-of-place in this discussion which is about the Catholic church's theological views over evolution, so that we may improve this article. We're not biologists, we would not be suitable foes for any kind of regular debate (that are made between experts, not amateurs). So please: enough. NateK, if I thought discussing Bible exegesis with you was going to yield fruit then of course I would do it length. Instead I provide you with some valid information on biblical exegesis and then call you on the carpet about the fruits of your theology using objective facts/data. For example, you still haven't told me why Roman Catholics have such poor Bible reading habits compared to evangelicals and why the church hierarchy is evidently not leading on the issue to rectify things. I know it must be frustrating for you to be confronted with objective data from Catholic websites showing you the bad fruit of your theology, but nevertheless I will still do it. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." Liberals hate concrete data which show the inadequacies of their ideologies/theologies. They prefer to wrangle about more subjective matters and speculative matters and then engage in bad faith tactics about such matters and not go where the evidence leads. By the way, evolutionism has been linked to a decline in morals via a university study.[3] Conservative 19:47, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Catholics actually believe that an "Adam" somewhere, sometime existed; that he was the first "man"; that he was the first human to receive a soul by God and that he, and he alone, committed the Original Sin that spread to all mankind after him. This is what we (and I) believe. This is the nucleus of the Genesis, with everything around it being allegory and poetry - from the snake to the fig leaves. Circumstances are not defined by official dogma: we do not know where and when Adam lived, if he was really named "Adam", what the Original Sin was about, what happened next... but again, the question isn't biological or scientifical. It's spiritual. --Swordsman 13:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT) [inserted response] The modern theory of evolution teaches that there was no "first man", and that there was no Adam. All of Christianity, to make sense of the Passion, requires a first man and original sin. It cannot be that there were many humans, Adam sinned, and then the sin somehow spread, because then some would not be descended from Adam and the original sin, which the Catholic Church expressly rejects. Such a model is illogical as well, because there would be people who did not sin, or to whom the original sin did not reach. The bottom line is this: teachings that implicitly contradict Christianity will pull some naive students away from Christianity. But logic is helpful in recognizing the flaws to anti-Christian theories that don't identify themselves as such.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Swordsman, you said the issue is "spiritual". Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." If evolution loving Liberal Christianity is so spiritual, then why do they commit adultery more often and theologically conservative Christians? See: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. If evolution loving liberal Catholics and the evolution loving liberal Roman Catholic hierarchy are so spiritual, then why do so many Catholics fail to read the Bible compared to evangelical Christians?[4] If the Western Roman Catholic hierarchy is so spiritual, then why did Bill Donahue of the Catholic League say the Roman Catholic Church pederasty problem was the result of homosexual priests and cite statistics supporting his point? [5] Anytime you want to stop pretending that liberal Catholics and liberal Protestants (theologically liberal) are godly, that would be fine with me. Conservative 14:33, 16 June 2013 (EDT)For God's sake, this is the most appalling and uncoherent nonsequitur I have ever read. Are you sure to be okay? We are talking about the Catholic Church's view on evolution, not your rubbish. Catholics fail to read the Bible because, banally, there's no Bible-reading culture among common believers. We trust the Church to teach it. There's no "pederasty" problem: it's outright pedophilia (and Jesus said those who made scandal to children should be drowned with a millstone, symbolically), which is a psychiatric criminal disorder; whether it has a source in repressed homosexuality in the clergy could be a subject of discussion but it's not absolutely the point of this topic! --Swordsman 14:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Swordsman, I see that your sword is quite dull. Liberals always fails to deliver the goods and that is why you cannot defend the fruits of theological liberalism when stacked up beside the fruits of theological conservatism. You retreat to less objective rhetoric and prefer to sweep the fruits under the rug. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits". The fruits of economic liberalism and its mountains of debt will lay liberalism in all its forms low and the institutions that support it so I am not worrying about something as weak as liberalism or theological liberalism. Liberal Christianity will continue to shrink in the world while theologically conservative Christianity continues to prosper.[6] The historicity of the Bible and conservative Protestantism has evidence supporting it.[7] Evolution loving, liberal Catholicism on the other hand is a den of iniquity supported by nothing but hot air and blowhards who run away from their fruits and the evidence supporting biblical Christianity. Conservative 15:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT) I came here to discuss about the Catholic Church and evolution, to improve this article; we were having a productive discussion with Andrew and Nate until you came over and spawned your... this is supposed to be family-friendly, right?... your rants about the universal woes of "liberalism" (what Americans call liberalism at least). Which has absolutely ZERO pertinence to what we are discussing here, besides pounding the discussion into ridicule for those who read. Your hatred of Catholicism quite sums up your character; I'm tolerant and I will not get dragged into religion wars - just, I always wondered which one of the 41,000/30,000/10,000 protestant churches is right, since they all say they're "the one" that is right? By the way, I'm a liberale in Italy. Before you explode, go seeing what "liberalism" actually is in Europe. I will not answer to any other comment which does not return to the main point of discussion: facts about the Catholic Church and evolution. Over. --Swordsman 15:25, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Darwinism loving, Italian, theologically liberal Catholicism has a bleak future.[8] France has a history of Catholicism. No doubt what is happening in France will happen to Italy as well.[9] Morals degeneration has been linked belief in evolution via a university study and Italy/France are starting to pay a heavy price on the economic front due to their deep indebtedness and other drags on their economy. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[10] See also: Protestant work ethic and European countries Conservative 15:49, 16 June 2013 (EDT) That's a parody. That's all a parody. I'm on candid camera. You can't be serious - or sane. --Swordsman 15:52, 16 June 2013 (EDT) When you have to rely on armchair internet psychobabbling and cannot address the fruits of your religion, then something is seriously amiss. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." and liberal Catholics are not "spiritual" to use a term that you used above and were unsuccessful in defending. Conservative 15:58, 16 June 2013 (EDT) You destroyed an interessant discussion over the Catholic Church and evolution with your delusions and obsessions. That's all I'm going to say, Ken. I will not communicate with you anymore unless you revert to the topic at hand. Goodbye. --Swordsman 16:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)Swordsman, you may find comfort in your psychobabbling, but it cannot alter the fact that theological liberalism is imploding and has bad fruit using objective measurements nor does it have any evidence supporting it (the evidence is on the side of biblical Christianity). Keep retreating to the subjective world of psychobabbling, but you are not fooling anybody - not even yourself. Conservative 16:34, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Really, if that is the case, show me some peer-reviewed papers, from a trustworthy and reputable source! brenden 16:35, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Addendum - that isn't from QE.blogspot.com.Brendon, when you have to rely on the genetic fallacy and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal Guardian). Conservative 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... AlanE 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT) It's alright, Alan, I never took Mr(s)/Them/Conglomerate/Ms. Cons entirely seriously either. brenden 13:32, 17 June 2013 (EDT)AlanE, it wasn't deliberate. I have never taken him seriously and the misspelling is a reflection of that. I am not saying that to be mean. It is just the way it is.
The more I have been exposed to the left, the less seriously I have taken them. Plus, liberalism is imploding right now (academia, journalism, education, fiscal policies, demographically, etc.). It would surprise me if Obama and European leaders can hold things together economically until the November 2016 elections. To me liberals are like toothless bulldogs right now in terms of the sustainability of the notions which they want to impose on others. I am reading less and less of their material. Conservative 02:22, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
If that's how you feel, Cons. Fair enough. Go for it mate. Whatever you reckon. You can't have people trying to impose their views on others, can you? AlanE 03:40, 17 June 2013 (EDT) The Romans tried to impose their gods on Christians and it didn't last. The atheist/agnostics/liberals attempts to impose their evolutionism religion on Christians won't last either. Conservative 04:24, 17 June 2013 (EDT)Swordsman, by the way, corruption is endemic in Italy and has been for a long time and Italy is buried in debt. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[11] See also: Protestant work ethic and European countries
Remember, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruit." Swordsman, Italian liberal Catholicism has a lot of rotten fruit. Conservative 01:42, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
I think the article sums up the Catholic Church's view on evolution quite well with a well balanced amount of space devoted to it. WilcoxD 02:37, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
User talk:AngusT
(Difference between revisions)
Welcome!
Hello, AngusT, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, AngusT!
JacobB 00:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)AngusT, remember that the Conservapedia Commandments forbid excessive talk. Repeatedly arguing on talk pages is a blockable offense under the 90/10 Rule. Please be sure you make substantive contributions as well as discussions. Thank you.--Wuhao1911 19:46, 3 January 2010 (EST)
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }Please be sure you give citations and explain removal of already vetted facts. If you remove a citation, please replace it with another. --?K/Admin/Talk 15:33, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
I removed a broken link and the "facts" it supported. The site in question, even if the link worked, as for an obviously socialist group called the United States Institute for Peace. I don't think this is a reliable source by Conservapdia standards, but I could be wrong. The article as it stands basically accuses Pinochet of murdering thousands of innocent people, something communist apologetic liberals like to say but which has never been proved. The Pinochet article gives a much more accurate account than the Allende one, so it seems that one should to be edited for accuracy. In my opinion, Conservapedia shouldn't jump on the anti-Pinochet bandwagon like so many leftists in this country. I welcome your input in this area. AngusT 16:26, 19 April 2010 (EDT)Hi. Thanks for pointing this out about "Lucky Lindy". --Ed Poor Talk 14:27, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
You're welcome. I'm a little surprised he wasn't mentioned already! AngusT 10:08, 16 September 2010 (EDT)Please avoid name calling, as you did at Talk:Main Page. If you are not aware of the rules, please take a look at them again. Calling brits "whiney", and insulting them is against the rules. Thank you.
Advisory Warning
Hello, AngusT,
We're glad you are here to learn and possibly edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you do.
Your chosen user name and/or initial edits don't inspire a great deal of confidence, however.
If you are here to argue, show us why we are wrong, introduce a liberal POV into articles, engage in time wasting talk, talk, talk, you have indeed come to the wrong place. We value conciseness, civility and productivity here.
Please consider opening your mind...the truth will set you free!
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page.
Thanks for reading, AngusT!
JonM 12:20, 14 February 2012 (EST)
After browsing some of your contributions, I have found your edits to be less than satisfactory. Attaching the accusation of "liberal" to completely non-partisan articles was a favored tactic of parodists, so I have my reservations about your edits. Consider yourself warned. brenden 19:58, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)